<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
- To: "Griffin,Lance" <Lance.Griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:46:24 -0700
<div><SPAN class=104442721-24052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>>
What is the definition of a minority report?</FONT></SPAN></div>
<div> </div>
<div>
The Names Council Rules of Procedure specifies that any Consensus Policy
Recommendations of a Task Force must include "a fair statement of points in
opposition and a substantive analysis of their merits and the intensity of the
opposition." Avri can confirm this perhaps.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>> Can anyone file one if they do
not agree with the majority?</FONT></div>
<div> </div>
<div>That is my understanding.</div>
<div><BR><BR>Tim <BR></div>
<div name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report<BR>From: "Griffin, Lance"
<Lance.Griffin@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Thu, May 24, 2007 4:28 pm<BR>To: "Tim
Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike
Rodenbaugh"<BR><mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc:
<gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=104442721-24052007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>
What is the definition of a minority report? Can anyone file one
if they do not agree with the majority?</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B>
owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Tim Ruiz<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:58
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Mike Rodenbaugh<BR><B>Cc:</B>
gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of
Report<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
This is the current draft? I thought Liz was working on an update. So
there will be no indication of who supports what? I'm not trying to be an a$$
about that, I just think it's unusual not to and I believe it will be
an important question raised by the Council. Also, will minority reports
be included? I submitted one on Saturday.</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>Tim<BR></DIV>
<DIV name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report<BR>From: "Mike Rodenbaugh"
<mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Wed, May 23, 2007 7:54 pm<BR>To:
<gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR>
<STYLE>
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage v\:* { BEHAVIOR:
url(#default#VML) }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage o\:* { BEHAVIOR:
url(#default#VML) }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage w\:* { BEHAVIOR:
url(#default#VML) }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage .shape { BEHAVIOR:
url(#default#VML) }
</STYLE>
<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:SMARTTAGTYPE name="PersonName"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></O:SMARTTAGTYPE>
<STYLE>
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage st1\:* { BEHAVIOR:
url(#default#ieooui) }
</STYLE>
<STYLE>
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage UNKNOWN { FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; panose-1: 2 11 6 4
3 5 4 4 2 4 }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE:
12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage A:link { COLOR: blue;
TEXT-DECORATION: underline }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage A:visited { COLOR:
purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{ COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage P.MsoPlainText {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New
Roman"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage LI.MsoPlainText {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New
Roman"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage DIV.MsoPlainText {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New
Roman"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage P { FONT-SIZE: 12pt;
MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman";
mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage SPAN.EmailStyle18 {
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-reply }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage UNKNOWN { MARGIN: 1in 1.25in; size: 8.5in 11.0in }
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage #wmMessageComp #wmMessage DIV.Section1 { page:
Section1 }
</STYLE>
<DIV class=Section1>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR:
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
Kristina, this looks really good and I much appreciate all your
effort. I have a few suggested edits in attached doc, and three
substantive issues for potential discussion and clarification.
First,<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR:
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">4.1.4: <B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Agreement</SPAN></B>
that if a new gTLD elects to use a Sunrise Process RPM, then it SHOULD
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND: yellow">restrict eligible Legal Rights</SPAN> in such
a manner as to <SPAN style="BACKGROUND: yellow">discourage abusive
registration</SPAN>
. [I don’t understand this 2d clause. Does this mean
Registries should narrow the scope of rights that can be protected, to
discourage gaming of the RPM process? I don’t think there was
Agreement on that.] <O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR:
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR:
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
Second, sec 4.1.3 and 4.1.6 seem generally the same principle, I would
delete 4.1.6 or characterize it as an Alternative
View.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR:
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR:
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Third, <O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR:
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt">4.2.4 <B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Support</SPAN></B>
for the principle that if a new gTLD elects to use a Sunrise Process as
its RPM and second-level names are not awarded on a First-Come, First-Served
basis, then competing applicants MAY be provided with an opportunity to reach
an allocation decision between/among themselves. [I think there was
Support that such an opportunity SHOULD (or even MUST?) be provided. I
see no reason not to provide it.]<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR:
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR:
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoPlainText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=Arial color=black
size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Mike
Rodenbaugh<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=navy size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt; COLOR: navy"></SPAN></FONT><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><FONT face="Times
New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR tabIndex=-1 align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><B><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE:
10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">
owner-<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 /><ST1:PERSONNAME
w:st="on">gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx</ST1:PERSONNAME> [mailto:owner-<ST1:PERSONNAME
w:st="on">gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx</ST1:PERSONNAME>] <B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold">On Behalf Of </SPAN></B><ST1:PERSONNAME w:st="on">Rosette,
Kristina</ST1:PERSONNAME><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:31 PM<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> <ST1:PERSONNAME
w:st="on">gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx</ST1:PERSONNAME><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of
Report</SPAN></FONT><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial">All,</SPAN></FONT> <O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
Attached is the current draft of the report. Here's what changed
since last night's version.</SPAN></FONT> <O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV><U><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial">Added</SPAN></FONT></U><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> Kelly's Introduction.</SPAN></FONT> <O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV><U><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial">Added</SPAN></FONT></U><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
definitions. I used the definitions I suggested this morning
minus my subsequent revision to RPM. I indicated that there has not been
discussion of the Rights of Others section.</SPAN></FONT><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV><U><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial">Created</SPAN></FONT></U><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
a fee-specific section in Outcomes. All fee-related
principles and proposals are here. Intro makes clear there are no levels
of support.</SPAN></FONT><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV><U><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial">Created</SPAN></FONT></U><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
a new RPM section in Outcomes. All new RPM proposals (Peter's,
Mike's, and mine) are here. Intro makes clear that there's been no
decision and there's outstanding work.</SPAN></FONT><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV><U><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial">
Classified all other proposals as Agreement, Support, Alternative
View</SPAN></FONT></U><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
. I used the following methodology. I started with the
chart I circulated last night and re-characterized the levels of support based
on the postings today. If only one person objected to a proposal, I
characterized the support as Agreement. If only one person objected to a
proposal and provided their own suggestion, I characterized support for the
original proposal as Agreement and identified the objector's suggestion as
Alternative View. I characterized the level of support as Agreement ONLY
if there was unanimity OR there was only one objection. Please
check these carefully. </SPAN></FONT><B><U><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold"> </SPAN></U></B><B><U><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Any mischaracterizations ARE NOT
intentional.</SPAN></FONT></U></B> <FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
(Avri, I integrated your comments in #16 in way that I think you would
find agreeable. Please check 4.2.5)) Finally, I listed in
Outstanding work everything that had not been substantively discussed and/or
had not resulted in level of support.</SPAN></FONT><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial">-*-</SPAN></FONT> <O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
The report needs formatting clean-up as the spacing and may not be
consistent. I also did not change New RPM Proposals to reflect
agreed-upon terms. I'm sure there's something that I did or did not do
that is not mentioned here. </SPAN></FONT><B><U><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold"> </SPAN></U></B><B><U><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Any and all omissions are
unintentional.</SPAN></FONT></U></B><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial">K</SPAN></FONT> <O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=black size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR:
black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
<<05172007 GNSO PRO WG draft report - SCRUBBED on 05-17-07
17_29.DOC>>
</SPAN></FONT><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|